b-greek-digest Sunday, 26 November 1995 Volume 01 : Number 016
In this issue:
Re: TO TELEION / 1 Cor. 13:10
CFV for SCI.PHILOSOPHY.NATURAL Moderated
Re: TO TELEION / 1 Cor. 13:10
Re: John 3:16
Re: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
Re: John 3:16
Re: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
Re: I Tim.2:15
Jn 3.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 00:15:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: TO TELEION / 1 Cor. 13:10
Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu> wrote:
>[A]round 1830, Edward Irving, a noted
>Presbyterian preacher in London, began preaching that I Cor. 13:10 (When t=
he
>perfect comes, the thing in part will be done away) implies that these gif=
ts
>should still be in use today since Jesus had not yet come again. To count=
er
>this argument, some changed their exposition of TO TELEION from perfection=
at
>the second coming to completion when all prophecy was finished. In a 1976
>lecture here at Abilene Christian, Carroll Osburn noted that the earliest =
that
>he had been able to find this revised argument (which both Byron and I gre=
w up
>hearing) was in the 1878 commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown. I
>suppose that was in reaction to Irving's position some 50 years before.
>
>For me, a more crucial question than the meaning of TO TELEION is the
>significance of hOTAN in verse 10. Edward Irving argued that this implied
>that TO EK MEROUS "the thing in part" would not cease (except for times of
>corruption in the church) *until* TO TELEION should come. I no longer bel=
ieve
>this follows. In verse 11, Paul says, hOTE GEGONA ANHR, KATHRGHKA TA TOU
>NHPIOU "When I became a man [NRSV adult], I put away the things of the chi=
ld."
>Paul did not retain all his childish speech, thinking, and reasoning until=
the
>age of manhood. Those things gradually passed away as they were no longer
>needed or appropriate. I see no real difference between hOTE in verse 11 =
and
>hOTAN in verse 10 as regards this; he uses hOTAN in verse 10 because the t=
ime
>of the coming of TO TELEION was indefinite and hOTE in verse 11 because he
>knew when he had become a man. But neither means "At the time of and not =
a
>whit before" as oft imagined both by Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals ali=
ke.
=09Edward Irving is rather a wild card, both for Pentecostals and for
other premillennial Evangelicals. Although strong emphases appeared in his
theology which antedated similar themes in both these groups, it is
difficult to find anyone who knows about him that doesn'=92=92=94=92t maint=
ain
reservations about certain aspects of his theology. Bruce=92s comments
about his position on 1Cor. 13:10 and context, however, are of interest as
an explanation of the rise of the interpretation equating TO TELEION with
the completion of the canon.=20
=09Caution is certainly advisable when we are dealing with a
passage the carries as much theological weight, practically speaking, as
this one. Bruce has mentioned hOTAN and hOTE. The first, used with the
aorist subjunctive, indicates that the action of the subordinate clause
precedes that of the main clause (BAGD s.v. hOTAN). I.e., TO TELEION will
come before "that which is in part" will be done away. hOTE, used in v.
11 with the imperfect, refers to some extended time that, with his use of
the perfect of 11b, Paul simply indicates came to an end with the
establishment of a new situation. It is important to understand that these
matters from Paul=92s personal life simply serve as an illustration of what
he is trying to convey. We must not put more weight on such an
illustration than it is able to carry.=20
=09To catch his meaning here, the pericope must be considered as a
whole and understood in the context of the entire matter of the spiritual
gifts being treated especially in chapters 12 through 14. And it wouldn'=
=92t
hurt to keep in mind the larger context of the whole of 1Cor. and the rest
of the Pauline corpus. But, to limit my discussion to vv. 8-13, it seems
good to recall Ken Litwak'=92s comments on this passage in which he called
attention to the language of v. 12 that practically doesn'=92=92=94=92t adm=
it any
understanding other than reference to the perfection we, as believers,
shall experience in the eschaton. Also, it seems that Paul is lifting up
AGAPH as something that will not be affected by the coming of the
eschaton. Although most take faith and hope as equally eternal with love,
Paul may have in mind an implicit argument here in which he is saying that
love will never pass from the scene but even faith and hope, as important
as they now are, will no longer be needed one day. (Cf. Rom. 8:23-25).=20
=09Nevertheless, we must recognize that Paul is cautioning about the
use of spiritual gifts. But his cautions do not have the purpose of
ending the use of the gifts (1Cor. 14:39; 1Thes. 5:20, 21). Rather he is
saying that they must be exercised in AGAPE if they hope to be of any real
and eternal benefit.=20
Regards to all,
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 05:45:16 -0600
Subject: CFV for SCI.PHILOSOPHY.NATURAL Moderated
The first call for votes (CFV) for the moderated group
sci.philosophy.natural has been posted in news.groups.
HOW TO VOTE
Just call up the CFV in news.groups, delete everything but the
ballot, type your name and your vote, and forward it to the
votetaker.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 12 Dec 1995.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions
about
the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Mentor: Mark James <jamesm@dialogic.com>
Votetaker: David Bostwick
<david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu>
RATIONALE: sci.philosophy.natural
sci.philosophy.natural will meet a long-standing demand for a moderated
newsgroup for the scholarly discussion of and publications on ancient
natural philosophy (science) without flames and without unfounded
'speculative' postings. The proposed newsgroup would not replace any
existing groups. There is a small overlap with *many* existing newsgroups
and mailing lists in that subjects appropriate to sci.philosophy.natural
are occasionally discussed there. One purpose of sci.philosophy.natural is
to bring these discussions under one roof to facilitate interdisciplinary
scholarship. In some cases, this may result in offloading some traffic from
high volume newsgroups and mailing lists. It would still leave any and all
posters the forums that currently exist, so there is no question of denying
anyone an outlet for their ideas. The small number of newsgroups and
mailing lists which regularly deal with topics appropriate to
sci.philosophy.natural may regard the proposed newsgroup as a means of
publishing finished articles after the rounds of specialist comment and
criticism have occurred.
Thanks for your participation.
Wishing you all had a great Thanksgiving !
(wish void where impolitic, inopportune, or otherwise inadvisable)
Will
------------------------------
From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@linknet.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 10:01:40 +0400
Subject: Re: TO TELEION / 1 Cor. 13:10
David Moore wrote;
> Caution is certainly advisable when we are dealing with a
>passage the carries as much theological weight, practically speaking, as
>this one. Bruce has mentioned hOTAN and hOTE. The first, used with the
>aorist subjunctive, indicates that the action of the subordinate clause
>precedes that of the main clause (BAGD s.v. hOTAN). I.e., TO TELEION will
>come before "that which is in part" will be done away. hOTE, used in v.
>11 with the imperfect, refers to some extended time that, with his use of
>the perfect of 11b, Paul simply indicates came to an end with the
>establishment of a new situation. It is important to understand that these
>matters from Paul=EDs personal life simply serve as an illustration of what
>he is trying to convey. We must not put more weight on such an
>illustration than it is able to carry.
>
> To catch his meaning here, the pericope must be considered as a
>whole and understood in the context of the entire matter of the spiritual
>gifts being treated especially in chapters 12 through 14. And it wouldn'=
=EDt
>hurt to keep in mind the larger context of the whole of 1Cor. and the rest
>of the Pauline corpus. But, to limit my discussion to vv. 8-13, it seems
>good to recall Ken Litwak'=EDs comments on this passage in which he called
>attention to the language of v. 12 that practically doesn'=ED=ED=EE=EDt=
admit any
>understanding other than reference to the perfection we, as believers,
>shall experience in the eschaton. Also, it seems that Paul is lifting up
>AGAPH as something that will not be affected by the coming of the
>eschaton. Although most take faith and hope as equally eternal with love,
>Paul may have in mind an implicit argument here in which he is saying that
>love will never pass from the scene but even faith and hope, as important
>as they now are, will no longer be needed one day. (Cf. Rom. 8:23-25).
>
> Nevertheless, we must recognize that Paul is cautioning about the
>use of spiritual gifts. But his cautions do not have the purpose of
>ending the use of the gifts (1Cor. 14:39; 1Thes. 5:20, 21). Rather he is
>saying that they must be exercised in AGAPE if they hope to be of any real
>and eternal benefit.
The last statement above is important I think. In an earlier post I
advocated the eschatalogical understanding of TO TELEION as over against
that which is EK MEROUS. I remember having encountered another
understanding of TO TELEION that still intrigues me. Wayne Oates (in
Stagg, Henson, & Oates, Glossalalia) called attention to the OTE HMHN
NHPIOS (when I was a child) as being the contrast to TO TELEION. He
compared speaking in tongues to the babbling of a child before the child
learns to form words and speech. He offered the suggestion that Paul was
thinking of the value of such an experience as helpful in the childhood of
faith for confirmation and inspiration. He suggested that Paul's reference
to TO TELEION refers to the mature state of a Christian when he/she can
love maturely without looking for anything in return. The contrast is
surely there and this would fit with the whole chapter where Paul is surely
saying cool it a bit.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College,
Pineville, La
winberyc@linknet.net
fax 318 442 4996
------------------------------
From: David Housholder <73423.2015@compuserve.com>
Date: 25 Nov 95 18:10:05 EST
Subject: Re: John 3:16
Paul Watkins wrote:
>>What are the implications of the first aorist active indicative of AGAPAW
>>as used in John 3:16? How does this function toward TON KOSMON? If we
>>assume that God loves this present kosmos then why didn't He use the
>>present tense?
It is probably an oversimplification of the significance of AGAPAW to state that
it refers to love in action rather than as an emotional or attitudinal state,
but that may be key to understanding what is happening here. The other key to
the passage is the hOUTWS which begins the sentence. hOUTWS is "in this manner"
or "thus." It is a misleading translation (I'm sure I'll be corrected here if I
am wrong <g>) to translate it as "so," and is mistranslation to translate it as
"so much." This is not a statement of degree but of method.
So the passage says, "God expressed his love [acted in love] toward the world in
the following manner: He gave . . . ." The "loved" is aorist because the "gave"
is aorist.
Incidentally, there is a Hindi translation of John 3:16 that translates EDWKEN
as "arpit de diya," which is "made an offering" or "offered." The delight in the
translation is that an "arpit" is an offering people make to God (or "the
gods"). Here expectation is turned upside down; God is presenting the arpit
needed to establish a good relationship.
David Housholder
writing at 6:05 PM on Saturday, November 25, 1995
------------------------------
From: Carl William Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 17:21:46 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
At 12:07 AM 11/25/95, Patrick J. Brennan wrote:
>On 11/13/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>A belated comment on 1 Tim. 2:15:
>>
>>I have for a number of years been intrigued by James Moffatt's
translation of
>>this verse:
>>
>>"However, women will get safely through childbirth, if they continue to be
>>faithful and loving and holy as well as unassuming."
>
>On 11/13/95 Carl W.Conrad replied:
>
>Wow! This is fascinating. For clarity's sake in comment, let me cite (noch
>wieder einmal!) the Greek:
>
>SWQHSETAI DE DIA THS TEKNOGONIAS, EAN MEINWSIN EN PISTEI KAI AGAPHi KAI
>hAGIASMWi META SWFROSUNHS.
>
>Outside of its context (which, quite frankly, is itself not exceptionally
>helpful toward the interpretation of the verse), this translation cannot be
>faulted, I think, as a reading of the possible meaning of the Greek text.
>In fact, although we do find DIA + genitive to express instrumentality, an
>instrumental dative would (from my admittedly Attic perspective) be
>preferable by far; and, in view of the fact that ancient childbirth is by
>no means without risk of life (Euripides' Medea, remember, says she'd
>rather face the foe with a spear on the battlefield three times to giving
>birth once!), and given the fact that, outside of the theological sphere,
>SWZEIN most normally DOES mean "bring safely," "preserve through peril,"
>"keep intact" (as in the parable of the wine and wineskins; I tend to think
>of getting safely through a semester!), the first clause of Moffat's
>translation seems very natural.
>
>Much as I like the whole version, however, I must admit that I have not
>seen SWFROSUNH applied to women anywhere in Greek texts I've studied in a
>sense other than sexual purity. When referring to a male, of course, it's
>always the rational control of one's appetites generally rather than
>specifically.....................................
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>May I suggest that SWFROSUNH in this case is not applying to women. The
>first part of this sentence
>SWQHSETAI DE DIA THS TEKNOGONIAS would be more correctly translated with
>"woman" or "she" since SWQHSETAI is in the third person SINGULAR. However
>SWFROSUNHS follows the verb MEINWSIN which is third person PLURAL.Could the
>second part of this sentence refer to CHILDREN (plural) and not WOMAN
>(singular)?
>
>In light of this might this be a better translation:
>
>However the woman (she) will be preserved through the bearing of children,
>if they (the children) continue in faith and love and holiness with
>modesty.
>
>Help me out on this one please.
This is certainly a POSSIBLE way of understanding the passage,
particularly a passage involving a rather weird sequence of shifts in
theme and construction, but there's no necessary reason to derive TEKNA
from TEKNOGONIAS to be the subject of MEINWSIN. Furthermore, if TEKNA
were the subject of MEINWSIN, it theoretically ought to have a verb in
the singular, since it is a neuter plural (but this is an old rule which
is sometimes observed and sometimes not). Finally, it gives an extremely
awkward explanation of the salvation of a woman--that it depends on the
moral stature of her children. I would rather assume that the plural
MEINWSIN is accounted for (however awkward) by a shift from a GENERIC
singular to a CONCRETE plural: GUNH --> plural subject of MEINWSIN.
It's a most puzzling passage, anyway you look at it.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Carl William Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 17:28:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: John 3:16
On 21 Nov 1995, Paul Watkins wrote:
> What are the implications of the first aorist active indicative of
> AGAPAW as used in John 3:16? How does this function toward TON KOSMON?
> If we assume that God loves this present kosmos then why didn't He use
> the present tense? As it is we are left with an undefined aspect and
> naturally wonder if the action was performed in the past and has since
> ceased- also a theological manouver to reconcile this with 1 John 2:15
> where it is a sin to love the present kosmos. Any ideas?
>
I don't see the problem here. The reference is to a past event (note that
EDWKEN is also aorist). Moreover, as the aspect is unlimited, there is no
implication whatsoever that God does not love the KOSMOS now; such a
notion could be expressed by an imperfect that might translate as "used
to love," but it might also be qualified with some limiting adverb such
as TOTE or PALAI or the like.
As for 1 John 2:15, I don't think the sense of KOSMOS has quite the same
sense there. In Jn 3:16 it is TON KOSMON, and the reference appears to be
to "humanity" or "created humanity," as is often the case in John.
However one also finds in John's gospel and elsewhere "this world,"
hOUTOS hO KOSMOS, in the distinctive apocalyptic sense of hAUTH hH GENEA
PONHRA KAI MOIXALIS, this world-age (OLAM HA-ZEH) as opposed to the
world-age-to-come (OLAM HA-BA), humanity alienated from God and perverse.
Finally, it is evident that 1 John 2:15 says nothing about whether God
continues to love the world alienated from Him (Her?) as we suppose
He/She does; it rather urges believers not to be enamored with the
vanities of an evil age. To be sure the dualistic strain that runs
through the gospel of John is present much more sharply in 1 John, and
the dualism is much closer to the traditional apocalyptic dualism than
what we most often find in the gospel. Nevertheless KOSMOS has in chapter
17 of the gospel some of the same overtones as in 1 John 2:15.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics,
Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 18:00:54 -0600
Subject: Re: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
Carl W. Conrad writes:
>Finally, it gives an extremely
>awkward explanation of the salvation of a woman--that it depends on the
>moral stature of her children. I would rather assume that the plural
>MEINWSIN is accounted for (however awkward) by a shift from a GENERIC
>singular to a CONCRETE plural: GUNH --> plural subject of MEINWSIN.
>
>It's a most puzzling passage, anyway you look at it.
I am not qualified to discuss this on linguistic grounds; however, it would
seem to make sense in terms of ancient symbology to judge a woman by her
"fruits" (peri-habaten) in the same way that a tree is judged by its fruits
(e.g. Parables of the Barren Fig Tree; Sower, Tares).
In this vein, can anyone point to any evidence for there being two paths to
salvation - one for males and one for females in the NT?
Will
------------------------------
From: "James W. Cook" <jcook@yeti.polarnet.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 95 17:24:51 Alaskan Standard Time+0000
Subject: Re: I Tim.2:15
>On 11/13/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>>A belated comment on 1 Tim. 2:15:
>>I have for a number of years been intrigued by James Moffatt's translation of
>>this verse:
>>
>>"However, women will get safely through childbirth, if they continue to be
>>faithful and loving and holy as well as unassuming."
>
>On 11/13/95 Carl W.Conrad replied:
>SWQHSETAI DE DIA THS TEKNOGONIAS would be more correctly translated with
>"woman" or "she" since SWQHSETAI is in the third person SINGULAR. However
>SWFROSUNHS follows the verb MEINWSIN which is third person PLURAL.Could the
>second part of this sentence refer to CHILDREN (plural) and not WOMAN
>(singular)?
>
>In light of this might this be a better translation:
>
>However the woman (she) will be preserved through the bearing of children,
>if they (the children) continue in faith and love and holiness with
>modesty.
Or is this possible:
However the woman (Eve) will be preserved through the bearing of children,
if they (females/women) continue in faith and love and holiness with modesty.
Jim Cook ~ North Pole, Alaska
jcook@polarnet.com
http://www.polarnet.com/Users/JCook/jcook.htm
------------------------------
From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 22:12:25 -0500
Subject: Jn 3.16
dear David,
In a recent article Eduard Schweizer argued that in Jn 3.16 EDWKEN means
an offering for sin. He used I Jn 4.9-10 where the same thing of "God
sending the son" occurs and hILASMON PERI TWN hAMARTIWN hHMWN expands the
idea. For good measure Schweizer also threw in Rom 8.3, PERI hAMARTIAS, and
Gal 4.4-5.
richard arthur Merrimack, NH LISATIA@aol.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #16
****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu